On Dec 31, 2:43 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/30/2011 4:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIuF5DcsbKU
> > The uncanny valley is a hypothesis in the field of robotics and 3D
> > computer animation which holds that when human replicas look and act
> > almost, but not perfectly, like actual human beings, it causes a
> > response of revulsion among human observers. The valley in question
> > is a dip in a proposed graph of the positivity of human reaction as a
> > function of a robot s human likeness.
> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Mori_Uncanny_Valle...
> > Shouldn't our computation be pleased with the idea of being exported
> > out of it's slow and error prone flesh?
> The valley occurs because something that looks and acts almost, but not 
> exactly like a
> normal human being is also something that acts like a sick or psychotic or 
> otherwise
> strange human being.  Like a human being pretending to be a different human 
> being - which
> is a danger sign.  It's just generalized xenophobia.

But what is the computational justification for xenophobia? Why does
novel or unconventional computation = 'strange' rather than 'wonderful


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to